Health Psychology Review.
(Taylor & Francis)
First round of reviews.
| Turnaround rate | 32 days (SD = 0) |
| Review length | 297 words (SD = 209) |
| Review quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Would submit again | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Journal recommendation | 1 / 5 (SD = 0) |
(based on 1 report including 2 reviews) |
|
Desk rejects. |
|
| Turnaround rate | n/a |
| Plausibility | n/a |
Reviewers & Editors (Initial Submissions)
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 297 words (SD = 209) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 4.5 / 5 (SD = 0.5) |
| Helpfulness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 84 words (SD = 0) |
| Decision | Revise&Resubmit (modal) |
| Plausibility | 5 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Helpfulness | 2 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Fairness | 4 / 5 (SD = 0) |
| Overall quality | 2 / 5 (SD = 0) |
Reviewers & Editors (Successive Rounds)
| Turnaround rate | 66 days (SD = 14) |
(based on 1 report including 6 reviews) |
|
| Reviewers | |
| Length | 591 words (SD = 602) |
| Overall tone | Positive (modal) |
| Knowledge | 4.2 / 5 (SD = 0.7) |
| Helpfulness | 4 / 5 (SD = 1) |
| Fairness | 3.8 / 5 (SD = 0.7) |
| Consistency | 3.2 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Overall quality | 3.8 / 5 (SD = 0.7) |
| Editors | |
| Length | 274 words (SD = 73) |
| Decision | Revise&Resubmit (modal) |
| Plausibility | 2.3 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
| Helpfulness | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 0.9) |
| Fairness | 2 / 5 (SD = 1.4) |
| Overall quality | 2.7 / 5 (SD = 1.2) |
Comments
· Overall quality rating: 1 / 5 · Recommendation: 1 / 5
I have written this review not to vent but to warn other potential contributors of what they might expect from this journal. The action editor kept my manuscript for a year and sent it to *three* sets of reviewers. He offered *no* comments in the first round of reviews (other than "I agree with the reviewers") but then ultimately rejected the manuscript. The reviewers offered many constructive and mostly positive suggestions, and I have appreciated their useful feedback that has helped me improve the manuscript. The action editor, in contrast, was indecisive and ultimately dropped the ball. I would never consider submitting to this journal again, which is a shame, as it would have been the best fit for this particular manuscript.
I have written this review not to vent but to warn other potential contributors of what they might expect from this journal. The action editor kept my manuscript for a year and sent it to *three* sets of reviewers. He offered *no* comments in the first round of reviews (other than "I agree with the reviewers") but then ultimately rejected the manuscript. The reviewers offered many constructive and mostly positive suggestions, and I have appreciated their useful feedback that has helped me improve the manuscript. The action editor, in contrast, was indecisive and ultimately dropped the ball. I would never consider submitting to this journal again, which is a shame, as it would have been the best fit for this particular manuscript.
Suggest Journal
Missing a journal in our database? Suggest adding it below!
Send Suggestion